Category: Immigration

Jacob Hornberger explains what many people don’t seem to be able to get as far as the effects of the drug war are concerned. The crimes, violence, drug cartels, drug lords like Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman now on trial in New York, are results of the drug war itself, not the drugs. Government interventionism and central planning in drug “control,” or attempted control. More problems result from the interventionists’ drug war, and their solutions are more interventionism, which causes more problems. And as Hornberger points out, it’s the same thing regarding immigration.

The 2018 elections are over with, and now the media and Americans will be obsessed with the 2020 elections from now until November of 2020. And there’s no good reason for that.

For those annoyed with my posts yesterday with videos discussing whether these elections make any difference for liberty, and the notion that “every vote counts,” and “if you vote for third parties you’re wasting your vote,” etc., I am actually the realistic one here. When I voted for Ron Paul the Libertarian Party candidate in 1988, I was voting for the only non-statist. And we knew that was the case because 99% of his votes in Congress up to that time and since then had been non-ststist — against the State, its power expansions, its intrusions, its criminality, thefts, molestations of innocents, warmongering, and so on.

That year the other two candidates of the major parties were George H.W. Bush, who was elected President and went on to start a war of aggression against Iraq for no good reason that caused blowback including 9/11, and loser Michael Dukakis who was a typical Democrat who wanted to empower the government to steal as much as possible from “the rich” (i.e. all the workers and producers of society) and impose one intrusion after another into private property. It’s been the same ever since then.

Since that 1988 election, I did vote through 1992 but not after that. It took those four whole years more for me to finally deal with the fact the these elections are rigged in favor of statists and against those who support the non-aggression principle, freedom of association, private property rights, i.e. liberty.

The dumb clucks in the mainstream media who are powerful in controlling who and what messages get air time and who and what doesn’t, have been silencing and smearing the libertarian message, frankly.

There are those who look down on non-voters. “Well if you don’t vote then you have no right to complain about things,” and so on. No, it’s the other way around.

The ones who DO vote are the ones who have no right to complain, because they are the ones who voted in the statists who continue to make things worse. (Like George H.W. Bush, his no-good son, and most of Congress.)

Sure, Donald Trump signed tax cuts into law, but his trade idiocy will reverse the economic progress stimulated by the tax cuts and deregulations. Trade protectionism imposes taxes on you either directly or imposes costs indirectly in its attempts to force or coerce you to buy American products (regardless of their possible poor quality and higher prices) in the name of allegedly protecting American producers. That despite Trump’s causing American producers to have to pay higher prices for the capital goods they need to run their businesses and manufacturing plants. And what are the results of that?

On this week’s elections, the Democrats regained control of the House and the Republicans expanded their control over the Senate. More gridlock is a good thing, rather than rubber-stamping of Trump’s police state/welfare/warfare state agenda.

Ted Scruz wins reelection in Texas, and Scott Walker loses reelection in Wisconsin. And Pocahontas and Gov. Charlie Baker are reelected in Massachusetts, which approved the transgender bathroom/shower law by 67%. In New Hampshire, the “Live Free or Die” state, Gov. Chris Sunununu was reelected. Like Charlie Half-Baker, Sunununu also signed a transgender bathroom/shower bill into law.

Only 1.4% of New Hampshire voters voted for the Libertarian Party candidate, Jilletta Jarvis for governor. Not good. New Hampshire people, you need to strike “Live Free or Die” from those license plates now. “Statism Forever!” should be your motto, just like in all the other states. Private property rights? Never heard of it. “Liberty”? What’s that?

And now that the election is finally over with, the Mueller investigation will conclude with no indictment of Donald Trump regarding “collusions with Russia” in meddling in the 2016 election, because they never had any such evidence to begin with. But the Republicans in the House committees investigating the matters DO have evidence to indict James Comey, Rosenstein, Strzok, McCabe, James Claptrapper, and probably Brennan in their conspiring to meddle in the 2016 election, their criminally abusing the FISA spying authority to spy on the Trump campaign and falsely accuse or set up or frame Trump in aforementioned “Russia collusions,” and conspiracy to change the election outcome and “defraud the United States of America,” as well as perjury in their lying to Congress.

If Devin Nunes and the others don’t get going on the indictments between now and the first week of January, then all that will be swept under the rug and the American people will never know the truth, those who up to this time have been brainwashed by so much mainstream news media propaganda on “Trump-Russia-collusions.”

The Republicans in Congress can also pass another tax cut between now and January. Make it permanent, not temporary. The truth is, people have a right to keep everything they earn, spend it on consumer goods, invest it, save for the future, whatever they want, because what is theirs is theirs. Those who take it from them in the absence of a voluntary contract are stealing. And that’s what taxation is, but sadly many brainwashed sheeple believe otherwise.

And Democrats will open up new investigations on Donald Trump, without any evidence to support two years of allegations, and will attempt to have impeachment hearings, knowing full well that the Republicans who control the Senate will not pursue such crapola.

However, one good thing about Democrats controlling the House is that there will be no funding for a border wall. No government walls on the government border. This is America, not East Germany. “Oh, but it’s a wall to keep people out, not to keep people in.” Hmm, but what will future administrations in Washington do with that government wall, such as a Tom Perez administration or a Bernie Sanders administration?

And that’s a problem that Republicans have, very short-sighted and simple-minded. Do they know that most of the people who are in the U.S. “illegally” are those who have overstayed their visas or otherwise violated some bureaucratic rule, and NOT those who have snuck in through the border? Duh, Rethugs.

And besides denying the Ignoramus-in-Chief funding for a government wall on the border, the Democrats should also try to deny funding for further escalation of the police state, the drug war, and the military boondoggles they are getting now.

However, I am not particularly in agreement with Murray’s views on immigration. As I wrote in the post on the New Jersey election, “Dr. Sabrin does say he’s for immigration reform. I am not sure I totally agree with the specifics. I would repeal all laws pertaining to immigration, because the Constitution does not authorize the federal government to get involved in immigration. Just leave people alone, as long as you don’t suspect someone of committing acts of aggression, theft or fraud. It doesn’t matter whether the individual is within the “borders” or on the outside and traveling in.”

And I also included in that post a quote from Tom Knapp, who happens to be on the national Libertarian Party’s platform committee. Here’s Tom Knapp:

When I sought appointment to the Libertarian Party’s 2018 platform committee, I made a few commitments (including):

To seek a committee recommendation that the Libertarian Party delete the final sentence of Plank 3.4, “Free Trade and Migration,” as follows: “We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property.” Thanks to the committee for considering, and passing, this proposal!

I don’t think the LP platform says anything about “citizenship.” If it does, it shouldn’t.

“I oppose birthright citizenship because it is not consistent with the fundamental concept of citizenship–a strong cultural and political tie to a nation’s legal and economic systems. Citizenship requires embracing a nation’s founding ideals. For America, that means embracing our founding documents, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, especially all the rights guaranteed to a nation’s citizens. Coming to America legally is the best way to demonstrate that an immigrant will make our country his homeland to become a productive citizen.” – Murray Sabrin on the 14th Amendment

“I oppose birthright citizenship because it is not consistent with the fundamental concept of citizenship.”

But the “fundamental concept of citizenship” is not consistent with the fundamental concept of liberty, freedom of association, and private property, very important libertarian principles.

No, America has in its Constitution the First Amendment that protects the right of freedom of thought and conscience of every individual. In America, you can have the freedom to think and believe whatever the hell you want, even crackpot communist kookery.

If someone doesn’t “embrace the founding documents,” then he is not allowed “citizenship”? Not allowed in? Should we kick out Bernie Sanders, Evita Ocasio-Cortez, and Donald Trump? (And most of Trump’s cabinet, most of the U.S. Congress and the Supreme Court, and on and on…)

One commenter on Murray’s Facebook post stated that “The entire concept of citizenship is statist and un-libertarian.” And I totally agree with that.

I think a lot of people out there are America worshipers, and see this country as more of a private club than a territory in which the freedom of the individual is protected. Including the freedom of thought and conscience. The nationalists and conservatives and talk radio ditto-heads are obsessed with “citizenship” as well as their collectivism and America group identity mysticism. Many people of this variety do not see the forest for the trees, when it comes to the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, and especially private property and free-market capitalism. They want socialism in immigration controls in their endorsing of Washington’s central-planning bureaucrats’ attempted but futile controls over the movements of millions of people. And I must say, what a shame that there are very prominent libertarians who have been eating up the “immigrant invasion” fear-mongering. I’m reminded of the killer bees coming up from the south … and it never happened.

But if you are in New Jersey, please vote for Murray Sabrin. Make a statement to the Republicrats and Demopublicans in Washington.

James Bovard writes that we need a #MeToo movement for political consent, comparing to non-consensual sex the fact that even though you vote for your elected officials chances are that you don’t really consent to their votes or policies that result in violating your rights and your life, liberty or property. Yet, that is mostly what public officials and their enforcers do.

But that is the system that we have in place. The masses elect people to “represent” them and to “serve” their needs, but because the system is a compulsory monopoly and the masses must obey the authorities’ laws, policies, mandates or prohibitions, those in power can really do whatever they want and get away with it, no matter how dishonest, corrupt or criminal.

And it is worse the more centralized the system is. That is why if this society is going to survive as a civilized society, it must get rid of the centralized apparatus in Washington. It shouldn’t have been created to begin with. The more decentralized the better.

A lot of people just can’t or won’t grasp that. The conservatives who say they love “limited government” don’t want to admit the truth, because they are so mystical in their “love of America” and just a little too indoctrinated to love the government in Washington whose bureaucrats have more or less ruined America. The talk radio crowd are authoritarians who love and worship government police and government military and thus they love the Washington apparatus. The thought of dismantling the empire overseas, closing down all those U.S. military bases and bringing all the troops back to the U.S. (and putting them in the private sector!) frightens the conservatives and nationalists who “love America.” They believe in American Exceptionalism, not the Golden Rule.

And the people on the left want “democratic socialism,” or socialism, or communism, whichever word you like. They mean the same thing, quite frankly. They want to “destroy capitalism,” even though they have cars, iPhones, TVs, and all the crappy junk food they can eat as a result of capitalism, not socialism. What’s going on in Venezuela is what they will get if they really want socialism in America, the empty store shelves, the long lines, the mass starvation, the government killings of dissidents, military takeovers of industries, and their beloved Maduro and his minions living high off the hog at the people’s expense. That is what happens when the government takes over industry and has the power to steal wealth and earnings from the people. The rulers live off their slaves’ labor, which is pretty much what we have now in Amerika.

And as we have seen from the anti-foreigner, anti-immigrant morons like Trump and his ditto-head followers is that they actually love socialism, too, and not capitalism. Capitalism being “free markets,” that is, which necessarily includes a free market in labor and employment. If the anti-immigrant crowd wants to deport foreigners or block people from coming to America, arrest businessmen for hiring unauthorized workers regardless of their being peaceful and not harming anyone, then those anti-immigrant collectivists are really against free markets, and for government-controlled or government-owned markets, i.e. socialism.

So now we have elections next week. And for what? So Democrats can be empowered to impeach Trump or have special investigations of him, and attempt to repeal the Trump tax cuts that have enabled people to keep more of what rightfully belongs to them? Like the conservatives, the people on the left don’t seem to like freedom very much, as their policies have been mainly to confiscate the wealth or earnings of others, based on envy and covetousness. But then, the anti-immigrant crowd are also acting on covetousness when they approve of government police-state interfering in the honest, peaceful labor of foreigners. “They’re taking jobs away from Americans,” and all that crap. American “citizens” are entitled to a job by an employer in America. So, it isn’t just the people on the left who have a covetous entitlement mentality.

And let’s elect more Republicans to Congress to further expand the police state, further empower the military as they’re doing now, further expand the surveillance state, and all the bureaucracies that Republicans love as much as the Democrats. The Rethugs are True Believers, that’s for sure. (Read Laurence Vance’s articles exposing the Republicans.)

So I’m not sure if we can have a #MeToo movement for political consent as long as the system of institutionalized non-consent is in place. Let’s have a free society instead. Okay.

The Pentagon is sending 6,000 U.S. troops to the southern border, to protect Americans from the migrants “invading” from mainly Central American countries. The migrants are fleeing violence and chaos. In an interview with Laura Ingraham (via Economic Policy Journal), Donald Trump says he’s going to have tent prisons built to house the migrants. The U.S. will not build permanent structures. Okay, he didn’t call them “prisons,” I’m calling them that.

But Trump is a typical central-planning-obsessed bureaucrat. And an authoritarian as well. Rather than recognizing that much of what’s causing the violence and chaos in those other countries are U.S. government policies, such as the drug war especially, the Central-Planner-in-Chief will increase the central-planning that will escalate the problems further as well as create new problems. If you think that the 100-mile Constitution-Free-Zone is bad with ICE and border control goons illegally and criminally invading the persons and property of innocent people, Americans or otherwise, then wait until the military is on the border. They probably will not be just on the border but farther within the U.S.

And note the timing of the migrant caravan coming up through Mexico from Central America, just like the timing of the package bombs and the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting, just weeks before a big election here in the U.S. And I don’t know if the migrant caravan is all Soros-instigated and funded, or if it could be yet another CIA psy-op on behalf of aiding the military in its expanding power and the U.S. government giving the military contractors even further tax-funded extravagances, who knows.

That’s not too far-fetched, given that just in the past 10-15 years as well as the past 50 years our beloved U.S. government has conspired in several government-instigated plots and false flag psy-ops. Even though those events are well documented, many people who love their Washington rulers and who worship the military cannot hear such things, they just cannot accept that their own government can act criminally and be evil. As Jacob Hornberger wrote back in 2013, conspiracies are inherent to the national security state, and he listed 22 real conspiracies just from the 1950s to the 1970s alone.

Regarding the migrants who are fleeing drug war tyranny, drug lords and turf wars, drug traffickers, sex traffickers and human traffickers, if you end the drug war, much of those things will also end immediately. They will naturally go away because there will no longer be a black market in drugs that drug prohibition causes, there will no longer be an incentive for miserable wretches to make a huge profit off the vices, weaknesses and addictions of others.

Aside from the drug war, conservatives suggest that undocumented immigrants are coming to the U.S. to get on welfare, even though most come to get work rather than welfare. Still, this is a case against the welfare state, not against immigration to the U.S.

And Trump and conservatives are suggesting that there are MS-13 gang members being infiltrated in the migrant caravan, as well as Islamic terrorists who want to come here to kill Americans.

MS-13 is in large part a result of the civil wars in Central America, particularly El Salvador. The problem is that the U.S. government took sides there and greatly contributed to escalation of violence.

And those Islamic terrorists also being infiltrated in the migrant caravan (if that really is the case as claimed by neocons and warmongers)? Well, just what incentive would Islamic people from the Middle East have to do bad things to Americans? Could it be that the U.S. military has been invading and bombing Middle Eastern and Asian countries for decades and decades, murdering hundreds of thousands of civilians, especially since the end of the Cold War? That was when President George H.W. Bush started the first war of aggression against Iraq in 1991, authorized the U.S. military’s bombing of civilian Iraqi water and sewage treatment centers, caused the Iraqi civilians to have to use untreated water and thus cause skyrocketing rates of disease and, because of the sanctions and no-fly zones, caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands by the mid-1990s and hundreds of thousands more by the year 2000. (See James Bovard and Jacob Hornberger for more information on those sanctions.)

Government central planning doesn’t work and only escalates existing problems and/or creates new problems. As far as why the invasive, criminal, murderous actions of the U.S. government, military and CIA overseas for decades have caused further conflicts, violence, terrorism, and radicalized and motivated foreigners to want to come to the U.S. in retaliation, see Who Are the Terrorists? (from 1986) by Murray Rothbard, Terrorism, Anti-Terrorism, and American Foreign Policy (from 1996) by Richard Ebeling, Breeding Terrorism (from 1999) by Sheldon Richman, and Terrorism … or War? (from 2000) by Jacob Hornberger. And see this video from the late 1990s of Congressman Ron Paul warning that such actions by the U.S. government are bound to cause some kind of terrorist attack within the shores of the U.S. Those articles were all prior to 9/11.

Whenever Washington’s bureaucrats get the CIA or military involved in other countries’ conflicts, the conflicts are escalated or worsened. That is what central planning does, whether it’s in the form of drug or alcohol prohibition, medical care, immigration or national security. Read Planned Chaos by Ludwig von Mises to understand the negative effects of central planning.

So, rather than militarism, turning the guns of the U.S. military on immigrants, imprisoning immigrants, continuing the futile attempt to control the movements of millions of people which is impossible, and continuing the futile attempt to prevent people from getting drugs which they continue to get anyway, let’s instead put an end to all that government central planning, end the drug war and the war on immigrants, and end the sick militarism that is extremely unbecoming of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison’s vision of America.

Who knows why some so-called libertarians or conservative libertarians are so hysterical and irrational when it comes to the immigration issue. This one by Bionic Mosquito on LewRockwell.com is another one of those.

It’s like this is an “either-or” kind of thing. We either have an all-private property society, or we have complete government control over borders and immigration into the territory. And because we don’t have an all-private property society, we MUST accept the police state and central planning in immigration, and not complain (so it seems).

Bionic says that, well, “Until there are no state borders, it will be the state that makes the decision on who crosses the borders. In a world of state borders, every decision regarding immigration is a centrally-planned, state-enforced-at-the-end-of-the-barrel-of-a-gun decision; even a position of open borders.” And that’s that.

So, implied here as well as on many of these kinds of articles is a support for the central planners’ control that they have legally, and a support for the police state.

The libertarian conservatives seem to be frightened by the thousands of migrants from Central America “walking” up to the U.S. southern border. There’s a lot of propaganda out there, though. And I don’t believe that this is all “Soros-funded” and left-wing activist-directed. If you ask me, the “caravan” might very well be another psy-op being caused by the “national security” apparatus in Washington, who wants to fear-monger the people (including anti-“national security” libertarians) into supporting an even further intensified police state at the border and inside the border (and further increased budgets for all the police state agencies “protecting” us from all those bad people). Let’s put the military on the border so we can justify even larger budget increases for the military (in addition to Trump’s new “Space Force”). Yay.

Still, it’s immoral to violate the lives and liberty of innocent people because others have been violent or have been criminals. America used to be about individualism. But the libertarian conservatives seem to have become collectivists now. It is very disappointing to see libertarians engaging in group identity politics, but that is what we have here, in my view. Sad.

I wonder if Bionic supports arresting and caging businessmen for hiring unauthorized foreigners at their businesses, or raids on innocent people’s property, arresting those who have not harmed anyone, and on and on.

Contrasting the hysteria and irrationality with the so-called libertarians who now love the police state and central planning, we have the rational Jacob Hornberger, who writes about Donald Trump’s brilliant political strategy with the caravan “invading” our southern border:

Notwithstanding the fact that none of these refugees is armed and that the group includes lots of women and children, you would think that the United States is about to be invaded by the North Vietnamese, North Korean, Red Chinese, or Soviet armies (which was the official bugaboo throughout the Cold War). Trump has his supporters in a total tizzy. His dramatic decision to send (more) U.S. troops to the border to protect us from the coming “invasion” is nothing less than sheer political genius.

…

The result of Trump’s strategy? Countless Trumpistas are now quivering and quaking over the fact that the “illegals” are coming to get us. “Please, please, Mr. President, do whatever is necessary to keep us safe. Take away our freedoms and spend whatever you need to spend…

…

The only thing that works and the only thing that is consistent with moral principles is freedom and free markets, which necessarily means free trade, open immigration, freedom of association, freedom of travel, economic liberty, private property, liberty of contract, and privacy. What could be more rational than steadfastly continuing to stand for freedom and free markets and against a police state?

Do the anti-immigration libertarians ever spend as much time criticizing the police state as they do criticizing “open borders”? They don’t seem to spend much time in articles or blogs doing that. Why don’t they spend more time advocating eliminating the welfare state and the drug war as well? I rarely see, “Get rid of DHS, ICE, BTF, FBI, CIA, DEA, Etc., Etc.,” anymore.

So, to me, the libertarians on the right have become quite irrational and have lost touch with libertarian principles, maybe just as much as the libertarians on the left who have lost touch in their obsession with “social justice” and race and gender, and all that crap.

According to the Boston Glob, “The debate also highlighted the stark differences between the two candidates on a range of issues, including… the Republican-passed tax cuts (Warren called them a giveaway to billionaires and giant corporations, while Diehl defended them as a boon to the Massachusetts economy)…”

But at one point, according to the Globe,

During a testy debate on taxes, Warren and Diehl talked over each other several times, with Warren charging that Republicans were targeting Social Security to balance the red ink caused by the Republican-backed tax cuts. Diehl said that was a suggestion by Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell.

“I am not a Mitch McConnell Republican,” Diehl said. “I am a Massachusetts Republican that has worked with Democrats and Republicans.”

Warren quickly cut in. “Sorry, so when was it exactly that you called out Mitch McConnell on this and said you were opposed to a trillion-and-a-half dollars in tax cuts for billionaires?”

So, when Diehl says, “I am not a Mitch McConnell Republican … I am a Massachusetts Republican that has worked with Democrats and Republicans,” I think he means he’s a Republicrat or a Demopublican. (Or perhaps he’s a Rethuglicrat, who knows.)

And when Warren asks when Diehl “called out Mitch McConnell on this and said you were opposed to a trillion-and-a-half dollars in tax cuts for billionaires?” Diehl’s response is, “I think I’m doing it right now,” and he repeats that so we know he is against tax cuts, “I think I’m doing it right now, Senator Warren.”

So, he’s either for the tax cuts as the article on the debate pointed out, or he’s against the tax cuts. Another Romney.

And more cognitive dissonance from radio ditto-heads as well. Yesterday on Sean Hannity’s radio show, Hannity was pointing out polls and criticizing the Indiana Libertarian Party candidate for U.S. Senate, Lucy Brenton, for allegedly taking votes away from Hannity’s favored Rethuglican challenger, Mike Braun, in their challenge against incumbent Democretin Joe Donnelly. (The two Establishment party candidates included Libertarian Lucy in the debate, by the way.)

Awww, poor Hannity, he doesn’t like third party challenges, just like the fascists in Massachusetts who won’t let the Independent candidate Shiva Ayyadurai participate in the debates between Liz Warren and Geoff Diehl. Just another sign that, like the other hypocrite talk radio blabbermouths, Hannity is just another shill for the Establishment. We can’t have third parties elbowing their way in. God forbid.

Republican challengers like Braun and Diehl want to get a seat at the table, but what we need is someone who will get into Washington and knock the table over! I think that Trump was in some way one of those people — and previously, Ron Paul tried to be.

And also, I looked online at Indiana Libertarian Party candidate Lucy Benton‘s views and she’s very good on most issues. However, her stand on “illegal immigration” is the only one that’s not good, a bit mealy-mouthed, not particularly “libertarian.” She is concerned about immigrants getting here to get on welfare. The libertarian answer, and the real moral and practical answer, is to completely abolish the entire welfare state system, especially the racket that is run out of Washington. “Conservatives” never support that. They are as much welfare statists as the Democrats.

Jacob Hornberger of the Future of Freedom Foundation has this excellent article pointing out supposedly libertarian conservatives’ cognitive dissonance in their claiming to be libertarians, claiming to believe in private property rights and the non-aggression principle, yet supporting the government immigration controls including the police state along the border (and the police state within the country as well).

Hornberger writes:

Whenever you see an article or a speech advocating immigration controls by a conservative libertarian, you will notice one glaring feature, without exception: the absence of any mention of the death, suffering, and the police state that inevitably accompany a system of immigration controls. There is a good reason for that silence: the conservative libertarians do not want libertarians to know that the system they are advocating for the libertarian movement comes with death, suffering, and a police state.

Hornberger says he is a “limited-government libertarian” (as opposed to a zero-government libertarian or a voluntaryist. I am a voluntaryist).

There actually are prominent libertarians who have been with the libertarian movement for decades and who claim to be “anarcho-capitalists,” but because of their belief in “preserving our culture,” or preserving our American culture, whatever that is now, these so-called anarcho-capitalist and conservative libertarians seem to tacitly support the current immigration police state, government central planning in immigration, and the central planners in Washington and their attempts to control the movements of millions of people, something which central planners can never do. However, those prominent anarcho-capitalists do not openly state their defense of such government controls, but such support is nevertheless implied in their articles and speeches, in my view.

Hornberger lists the several problems with government immigration controls that conservative libertarians seem to be supporting:

1. Fixed highway checkpoints. These are located on domestic highways. Federal agents stop domestic travelers who have never crossed into Mexico. They ask them questions. If people refuse to answer their questions, the agents will break their car window, drag them out of their car, and beat them up…

2. Warrantless trespasses onto farms and ranches within 100 miles of any U.S. border. No search warrants. No probable cause. No reasonable suspicion…

3. Roving Border Patrol checkpoints…

4. Violent government raids on private businesses, ones in which the business owner has decided to use his own money to enter into mutually beneficial labor relations with citizens of foreign countries. That’s what a police state is all about.

5. Forcible governmental separation of children from their parents…

6. Forcible deportations of people who are engaged in purely peaceful acts, such as exercising the fundamental God-given rights of pursuing happiness and entering into mutually beneficial economic relations with others. That’s what a police state is all about.

7. The construction of a Berlin Fence and the proposed construction of a Berlin wall along the U.S.-Mexico border…

8. Border Patrol agents boarding Greyhound buses in cities and towns within 100 miles of any U.S. border, which they are now doing all over the United States. They are targeting Hispanics and anyone else who doesn’t look like a genuine American and demanding to see their papers…

9. Complete searches of body and vehicle at international crossing points, including body cavities after the person is required to completely disrobe in front of federal agents…

In my view, the real answers to the immigration problems in Amerika are ending the drug war, dismantling the welfare state or at least not letting immigrants get government welfare, and, most of all, full decentralization of this entire territory, which, as I have repeatedly stated, is just too damn big a territory to be one single country!